6 ms·

Wouldn't Fritzl's victims beat that by like 20 years? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case Disturbingly, al

by mburee 3y ago

Wouldn't Fritzl's victims beat that by like 20 years? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case Disturbingly, also Austrian...

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dybber 3y ago
> Fritzl, who received a life sentence, will be eligible for parole in 2023, having served the initial 15 years of his sentence Even though I’m usually against moves towards longer sentences, reading this was actually quite disturbing.
- burkaman 3y ago
  "Eligible" doesn't mean he'll actually be paroled, presumably some committee will have to decide if he can be released. It seems like a fine policy to allow the potential for parole while still keeping some convicts in jail if necessary.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    Keeping an 88-year-old violent criminal in jail could not be considered "necessary" by any definition other than a pure appeal to morality.
    - burkaman 3y ago
      I don't know anything about this particular case, I'm just saying that "eligible" shouldn't be disturbing in any situation because it doesn't mean very much.
    - Forgeties79 3y ago
      I hope you’re not really being as absolutist and handwavy of people’s concerns as you appear. There isn’t some age cut off (going up) where you are suddenly incapable of harming others. An 88 year old can commit all sorts of heinous acts.
    - irrational 3y ago
      I don’t understand why. My great grandfather was still strong and breaking horses in his late 80s. I have no doubt that if he was so inclined he could have easily engaged in violent crimes at that age. He was well into his 100s and completely healthy until he suddenly just died without warning. Maybe this person in jail is similar.
      - jjulius 3y ago
        Fred Beckey[1] was still climbing mountains, and still going to the extent of traveling to other countries to try to be the first to ascend certain summits via certain routes, well into his late 80's and early 90's. Folk can surprise you, and the type of clemency suggested by the person you're responding to should, IMO, be entirely circumstantial rather than just limited to an age cutoff. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Beckey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Beckey
        pcthrowaway 3y ago
        Uhhh from what I saw in dirtbag, he was not doing FAs in his 80s and while he marginally top roped at least once in his 90s, he was definitely struggling and practically had to have the documentary makers carry him to the crag so he could do it
        jjulius 3y ago
        Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not in a position to easily skip through the film on YouTube right now), but wasn't that the whole purpose of the international trip he made in Dirtbag? The peak had been summited before, but not via the route he intended to take.
        pcthrowaway 3y ago
        I don't remember the film well enough to say whether he attempted a first ascent in his 80s (I don't think he did), but his last accomplished first ascent was Bomber Lake Arete in 1997 (at the still impressive age of 74). While a first ascent at any age is impressive, and in your 70s even moreso, it would still be an inaccurate claim to say he was making first ascents into his late 70s, let alone late 80s.
    - arcanemachiner 3y ago
      What a strange series of words. You don't think an 88-year-old can rape kids?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - thaumasiotes 3y ago
        The threat doesn't exist. In the general case, an 88-year-old does not have the necessary ability, desire, or access to children.
        Natsu 3y ago
        That's not how psychos like this work in general, you're making it sound like he's a lot more normal than he actually is. This is a good case for the death penalty, because this is the type of person who can't be safely contained and there's no doubt whatsoever about his guilt, given that the kids can be DNA tested and the abnormal levels of relatedness are going to stand out.
    - funnymony 3y ago
      Morality or revenge?
    - Paul-Craft 3y ago
      I agree. I also feel the same way about putting 100 year old Nazis on trial. At this point, it's a total waste of resources that could be used much more productively. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58826189 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58826189
      - hluska 3y ago
        It’s a statement about what happens when you commit crimes against humanity. Fuck around badly enough and you will eventually be caught and destroyed. Keep the prosecutions coming. We should all cheer whenever some Nazi thug goes to jail and their family gets to deal with that terrible embarrassment.
        Paul-Craft 3y ago
        It's not. We don't need to make that statement anymore; it's been made sufficiently. It's putting centenarians in custody for no actual gain to society, just to score political points, and it's disgusting. If it's a statement, it's a statement that "we're willing to waste time and public money to virtue signal, when the problem will take care of itself in a very short amount of time."
        rocketbop 3y ago
        What we call justice has generally always involved a mix of deterrence, prevention and punishment for its own sake, ie to be seen as some sort of balancing of the wrong that’s been done. One might not like that idea but judges certainly think about all three aspects when sentencing.
        Paul-Craft 3y ago
        I don't see "throwing 100 year old men who are not currently dangerous to anybody and going to die in a couple of years anyway" anywhere under the definition of "justice" in my dictionary. If anything, I'd expect to see a cross reference to "See: stupid wastes of time and money."
    - bdowling 3y ago
      > other than a pure appeal to morality. There are several reasons to imprison criminals: (1) To physically prevent them from harming the public again. (2) To discourage them from committing crimes again in the future. (3) To punish them because punishing criminals is morally just. Reasons (1) and (2) are what you are thinking of when you say it’s useless to keep an 88-year-old in prison. (3) is your “appeal to morality”. However, there is also: (4) To discourage others from committing similar crimes. That last reason is just as important as the others, if not more so.
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    Yeah, even Charles Manson has been up for parole 12 times. https://www.charlesmanson.com/related/parole-hearings/ https://www.charlesmanson.com/related/parole-hearings/
- sva_ 3y ago
  He recently published a book saying he is innocent and a good family man. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11944009/Monster-without-ounce-shame-Josef-Fritzl-written-self-pitying-memoir.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11944009/Monster-...
  - calgarymicro 3y ago
    Based on the excerpts in the article it doesn't seem like he's denying much. Rather it seems more like he's trying to retroactively justify it/look for sympathy that I doubt he'll find. > the imprisonment and degradation of his own daughter — is described thus: ‘At first it was just a mind game I played. But I got used to it. The idea, which had previously seemed so absurd, so monstrous to me, took shape. > ‘One day I knew what I had to do. All that remained was to wait for the right opportunity. On that rainy Saturday morning the time had come. The thought had become action.’ > ‘It wasn’t easy, because the thoughts of what I had done were constantly circling within me,’ he says. ‘I was constantly energised. There was no one I could confide in. I had to look ahead and continue on the path I had chosen.’
- Anthony-G 3y ago
  > In 1967, Fritzl broke into the Linz home of a 24-year-old nurse while her husband was away and raped her while holding a knife to her throat, threatening to kill her if she screamed. According to an annual report for 1967 and a press release of the same year, he was also named as a suspect in a case of attempted rape of a 21-year-old woman, and was known for indecent exposure. Fritzl was arrested and served 12 months of an 18-month prison sentence. In accordance with Austrian law, his criminal record was expunged after 15 years. As a result, more than 25 years later, when he applied to adopt and/or foster Elisabeth's children, the local social service authorities did not discover his criminal history. Similarly, I generally believe in giving people the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and get on with their lives and don’t think that people should have to permanently live with the stigma of crimes they committed in the past. However, I don’t think that records of violent or similar criminal behaviour should be completely expunged; they should still be available in certain situations.
  - shjake 3y ago
    > Fritzl was arrested and served 12 months of an 18-month prison sentence. A single year for something like this just seems bizarre to me. No wonder the late 60s had so much violent crime..

by mburee 3y ago

Wouldn't Fritzl's victims beat that by like 20 years? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritzl_case Disturbingly, also Austrian...

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dybber 3y ago

> Fritzl, who received a life sentence, will be eligible for parole in 2023, having served the initial 15 years of his sentence Even though I’m usually against moves towards longer sentences, reading this was actually quite disturbing.

burkaman 3y ago
"Eligible" doesn't mean he'll actually be paroled, presumably some committee will have to decide if he can be released. It seems like a fine policy to allow the potential for parole while still keeping some convicts in jail if necessary.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  Keeping an 88-year-old violent criminal in jail could not be considered "necessary" by any definition other than a pure appeal to morality.
  - burkaman 3y ago
    I don't know anything about this particular case, I'm just saying that "eligible" shouldn't be disturbing in any situation because it doesn't mean very much.
  - Forgeties79 3y ago
    I hope you’re not really being as absolutist and handwavy of people’s concerns as you appear. There isn’t some age cut off (going up) where you are suddenly incapable of harming others. An 88 year old can commit all sorts of heinous acts.
  - irrational 3y ago
    I don’t understand why. My great grandfather was still strong and breaking horses in his late 80s. I have no doubt that if he was so inclined he could have easily engaged in violent crimes at that age. He was well into his 100s and completely healthy until he suddenly just died without warning. Maybe this person in jail is similar.
    - jjulius 3y ago
      Fred Beckey[1] was still climbing mountains, and still going to the extent of traveling to other countries to try to be the first to ascend certain summits via certain routes, well into his late 80's and early 90's. Folk can surprise you, and the type of clemency suggested by the person you're responding to should, IMO, be entirely circumstantial rather than just limited to an age cutoff. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Beckey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Beckey
      - pcthrowaway 3y ago
        Uhhh from what I saw in dirtbag, he was not doing FAs in his 80s and while he marginally top roped at least once in his 90s, he was definitely struggling and practically had to have the documentary makers carry him to the crag so he could do it
        jjulius 3y ago
        Correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not in a position to easily skip through the film on YouTube right now), but wasn't that the whole purpose of the international trip he made in Dirtbag? The peak had been summited before, but not via the route he intended to take.
        pcthrowaway 3y ago
        I don't remember the film well enough to say whether he attempted a first ascent in his 80s (I don't think he did), but his last accomplished first ascent was Bomber Lake Arete in 1997 (at the still impressive age of 74). While a first ascent at any age is impressive, and in your 70s even moreso, it would still be an inaccurate claim to say he was making first ascents into his late 70s, let alone late 80s.
  - arcanemachiner 3y ago
    What a strange series of words. You don't think an 88-year-old can rape kids?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      The threat doesn't exist. In the general case, an 88-year-old does not have the necessary ability, desire, or access to children.
      - Natsu 3y ago
        That's not how psychos like this work in general, you're making it sound like he's a lot more normal than he actually is. This is a good case for the death penalty, because this is the type of person who can't be safely contained and there's no doubt whatsoever about his guilt, given that the kids can be DNA tested and the abnormal levels of relatedness are going to stand out.
  - funnymony 3y ago
    Morality or revenge?
  - Paul-Craft 3y ago
    I agree. I also feel the same way about putting 100 year old Nazis on trial. At this point, it's a total waste of resources that could be used much more productively. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58826189 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58826189
    - hluska 3y ago
      It’s a statement about what happens when you commit crimes against humanity. Fuck around badly enough and you will eventually be caught and destroyed. Keep the prosecutions coming. We should all cheer whenever some Nazi thug goes to jail and their family gets to deal with that terrible embarrassment.
      - Paul-Craft 3y ago
        It's not. We don't need to make that statement anymore; it's been made sufficiently. It's putting centenarians in custody for no actual gain to society, just to score political points, and it's disgusting. If it's a statement, it's a statement that "we're willing to waste time and public money to virtue signal, when the problem will take care of itself in a very short amount of time."
        rocketbop 3y ago
        What we call justice has generally always involved a mix of deterrence, prevention and punishment for its own sake, ie to be seen as some sort of balancing of the wrong that’s been done. One might not like that idea but judges certainly think about all three aspects when sentencing.
        Paul-Craft 3y ago
        I don't see "throwing 100 year old men who are not currently dangerous to anybody and going to die in a couple of years anyway" anywhere under the definition of "justice" in my dictionary. If anything, I'd expect to see a cross reference to "See: stupid wastes of time and money."
  - bdowling 3y ago
    > other than a pure appeal to morality. There are several reasons to imprison criminals: (1) To physically prevent them from harming the public again. (2) To discourage them from committing crimes again in the future. (3) To punish them because punishing criminals is morally just. Reasons (1) and (2) are what you are thinking of when you say it’s useless to keep an 88-year-old in prison. (3) is your “appeal to morality”. However, there is also: (4) To discourage others from committing similar crimes. That last reason is just as important as the others, if not more so.
- Paul-Craft 3y ago
  Yeah, even Charles Manson has been up for parole 12 times. https://www.charlesmanson.com/related/parole-hearings/ https://www.charlesmanson.com/related/parole-hearings/
sva_ 3y ago
He recently published a book saying he is innocent and a good family man. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11944009/Monster-without-ounce-shame-Josef-Fritzl-written-self-pitying-memoir.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11944009/Monster-...
- calgarymicro 3y ago
  Based on the excerpts in the article it doesn't seem like he's denying much. Rather it seems more like he's trying to retroactively justify it/look for sympathy that I doubt he'll find. > the imprisonment and degradation of his own daughter — is described thus: ‘At first it was just a mind game I played. But I got used to it. The idea, which had previously seemed so absurd, so monstrous to me, took shape. > ‘One day I knew what I had to do. All that remained was to wait for the right opportunity. On that rainy Saturday morning the time had come. The thought had become action.’ > ‘It wasn’t easy, because the thoughts of what I had done were constantly circling within me,’ he says. ‘I was constantly energised. There was no one I could confide in. I had to look ahead and continue on the path I had chosen.’
Anthony-G 3y ago
> In 1967, Fritzl broke into the Linz home of a 24-year-old nurse while her husband was away and raped her while holding a knife to her throat, threatening to kill her if she screamed. According to an annual report for 1967 and a press release of the same year, he was also named as a suspect in a case of attempted rape of a 21-year-old woman, and was known for indecent exposure. Fritzl was arrested and served 12 months of an 18-month prison sentence. In accordance with Austrian law, his criminal record was expunged after 15 years. As a result, more than 25 years later, when he applied to adopt and/or foster Elisabeth's children, the local social service authorities did not discover his criminal history. Similarly, I generally believe in giving people the opportunity to rehabilitate themselves and get on with their lives and don’t think that people should have to permanently live with the stigma of crimes they committed in the past. However, I don’t think that records of violent or similar criminal behaviour should be completely expunged; they should still be available in certain situations.
- shjake 3y ago
  > Fritzl was arrested and served 12 months of an 18-month prison sentence. A single year for something like this just seems bizarre to me. No wonder the late 60s had so much violent crime..